I agree with one point and disagree with another. The point about taking a lot of time - people would be well served to really internalize that. Even in something like biotech you have a push for development and exists within a year of starting - a few years isn't that long a time to build something worthwhile and itll take you that long.

The point I don't agree with though is zero optionality. A simple counterexample is Warby Parker - the founders all had jobs lined up. A lot of founders I know consulted while getting their company off the ground. In general, founders need a high risk tolerance yes, but needless risk loving characteristics seem needlessly self destructive. Maybe this is too biotech specific a view, but you make progress by controlling risk and decreasing the amount of outstanding risk. You're able to handle the enormous risk at the start, but your job is making that number as small as you can over the following few years through building the venture. Creating optionality, creating new revenue sources to extend runway, decreasing reliance on outside capital, decreasing personal stress to allow you to focus on your work better, all these things work in your favor.